Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 07:21am PT
|
I imagine I'm not the only person that is having a hard time wrapping their head around the hypocrisy that claims $15 is somehow less valuable to a millionaire than it is to a struggling mother of two.
And then turns around and claims that the millionaire somehow "benefits" more from the blanket of protection that .gov provides than the mother of two and should therefore pay more.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the $15 is more "valuable" and difficult to replace to the mother of two that she, in fact, benefits more from those services?
I mean, if you want the rich people to support others on their coat tails, why not just be honest and say it rather then jump through your butt trying to rationalize that it somehow makes sense in a supposed "free" country.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 07:30am PT
|
Most economists seem to agree that killing a lot of the deductions that we give (including the mortgage interest deduction) and then lowering overall rates is the way to go and I'm all for that so long as the effective rates stay progressive and revenue is projected to be neutral.
So, if revenue stays neutral, and the rates stay progressive, tell me again what would actually change?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 07:34am PT
|
Morning, Lois. How's the day? Still out west?
Escopeta posted I imagine I'm not the only person that is having a hard time wrapping their head around the hypocrisy that claims $15 is somehow less valuable to a millionaire than it is to a struggling mother of two.
And then turns around and claims that the millionaire somehow "benefits" more from the blanket of protection that .gov provides than the mother of two and should therefore pay more.
That isn't what I said at all. I said that the millionaire is doing much better by the American political-economic system and should therefore bear the brunt of the costs of that system. The millionaire is a millionaire because our American system is working for them. If Americans all worked the same job for the same wage then paying the same tax rates would be just fine...but it isn't.
So, if revenue stays neutral, and the rates stay progressive, tell me again what would actually change?
Economists don't support lowering rates and eliminating deductions because they want to lower tax revenue, it's because deductions skew the economy in ways that do not always makes sense and create growth (or prevent it) in unhelpful ways. Look up why they do not like the mortgage interest deduction, for instance. (just kidding, we both know you're not here to learn things)
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 07:42am PT
|
For the sake of clarity take just one rich guy, Mitt Romney, and look at how he has benefitted from the system (in ways that others simply cannot) and how he avoided participating in it's military aspects.
AND
Haven't heard much about this lately.
“When I ran for office in 2010, the debt was an enormous issue and the debt was $10 trillion,” Mr. Paul said Friday on the Senate floor. “Some of us in the tea party were concerned because it had doubled in the [previous] eight years. It doubled from five [trillion dollars] to 10 under a Republican administration. And many of us were adamant that Republicans needed to do a better job. We had added new entitlement programs, we had added new spending, and the deficit got worse under Republicans. Now we’re under a Democrat president, and it’s set to double again.”
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 07:55am PT
|
Making a blanket statement like "economists don't want to lower the revenue base" or "economists agree that getting rid of the mortgage deduction...." Is pretty disingenuous.
I'm an economist, and I don't think that at all. The economists that happen to like your brand of maximum government revenue, tax and spend, and wealth redistribution might say that but selling it as this foregone conclusion, while also castigating me for not having a reasonable debate is silly.
Edit: Quotations used as paraphrase as I'm on a plane and it's hard to cut and paste.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 08:49am PT
|
Louiscopeta, your shtick is super boring. Fly safely.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 08:50am PT
|
Most economists seem to agree that killing a lot of the deductions that we give (including the mortgage interest deduction) and then lowering overall rates is the way to go and I'm all for that so long as the effective rates stay progressive and revenue is projected to be neutral.
HDDJ.... you do this and the housing industry will go down the tubes.
And HDDJ... how come you start calling Escopeta names??
I thought YOU stood for good debate. You need to toss crap at someone who disagrees?
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 08:52am PT
|
Louiscopeta, your shtick is super boring.
See what I mean?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 08:56am PT
|
I don't think I ever called her names. What she's doing isn't debating. She's playing a game and it's dull. If she posts some content or stops repeating talking points I am more than eager to engage. I am totally fine with people disagreeing with me but just repeating buzz words and acting offended/outraged isn't a debate, it's just dumb.
guyman posted HDDJ.... you do this and the housing industry will go down the tubes.
Yeah I thought so too but the more I've read about it the more I've been convinced. Currently it's largely a handout for people who don't need it (which I'm pretty sure is the kind of thing Republicans typically oppose).
*edit*
Mortgage interest deduction mostly goes to rich people who would own homes anyway.
The mortgage interest deduction mostly makes people buy larger houses.
Those don't seem like good goals of government policy and we currently spend more on the interest deduction than we do on actual housing programs.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:04am PT
|
What she's doing isn't debating
How, by asking questions you can't or won't answer?
ps
Are yer two links to The Idiot's Guide To Economics?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 09:04am PT
|
Which question is that?
ps- epic burn!! lulz
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:07am PT
|
I don't think I ever called her names. What she's doing isn't debating. She's playing a game and it's dull. If she posts some content or stops repeating talking points I am more than eager to engage. I am totally fine with people disagreeing with me but just repeating buzz words and acting offended/outraged isn't a debate, it's just dumb.
OK, you win... but calling Escopeta Lois is wrong of you. If anybody can be accused of just rolling out talking points its YOU. But don't worry your on a roll, as they say.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 09:09am PT
|
Really? Which talking points am I repeating?
|
|
Ay Aye
Social climber
MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:19am PT
|
Beware of the unforseen...
Fear-mongering has returned to the fatherland.
Have you been comprimised?
Have you been coerced, brain washed, and assimilated by one political machine or another?
Or can you create your own philosophy and think for yourself?
Beware...
The Mole Men are coming.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 09:24am PT
|
Now that's some rhetoric I can get behind.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:33am PT
|
Escopeta IS "L.E.B." aka.....Lois, the greatest internet troll on earth
back again after being banned four previous usernames
same old same old
take a hike, Lois
back to the nurses' station you go
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:43am PT
|
what is your stance on abortion? I can't remember what position that you have taken.
You can't remember because I haven't taken a position on it. I don't see a consensus on the issue, and for that reason, I would not make it illegal. That said, I think it is a fair political question, so I also think Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade misses the mark.
I will say this about abortion. A very liberal Protestant pastor, and a very conservative Catholic priest were discussing the morality of abortion the way climbers discuss just about anything -- i.e. they were arguing. Both eventually came down to Old Testament arguments about whether life begins at conception, or at birth. Just then, they saw an Orthodox rabbi walk by, and decided to see what his views would be on their Old Testament interpretations.
Consequently, they asked the rabbi, "Rabbi, when does life begin?" The rabbi thought for a while, then responded, "When does life begin? When the kids are done with college and the dog dies, that's what life begins!"
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 11:06am PT
|
It's interesting that what people remember, and are talking about, most from last night's state of the Union address rebuttal isn't Haley's criticisms of Obama, but her criticisms of the frontrunner for the presidential nomination of her own party.
When has something like that happened?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 12:08pm PT
|
She also acknowledged the Confederate Flag as a symbol of division and Dyann Roof as a domestic terrorist. Prominent Republican acknowledges reality: literally news.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:24pm PT
|
The concept of home ownership---shared ownership of a community---seems desirable on many fronts. Stability of the community, stability of the economy, etc.
Gov taking an action that facilitates those at the lower end being able to access and become part of that community seems reasonable to me.
However, the deduction is a straightforward money transfer of tax dollars.
But I don't see the need for this handout for people of substantial means. Nor for 2nd or third homes.
But I don't think a simple vote to end is the way to go. A phase out over time, and a phase lowering of what's covered, would seem to be reasonable.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!